ANNA HALL, PhD Delgado Community College, New Orleans, LA Presented at the QM Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 2010 Research grant funding provided by Quality Matters
Contents Two-fold Purpose of Study: Multi-factor COI “Teaching Presence” 1 Effects of QM Rubric Implementation Theoretical Background: COI Framework 2 Literature on Teacher Effects on Learning Data, Methods, Measures 3 Preliminary Analyses: 4 CFA; ANOVA, Regression Summary: 5 Conclusions, Observations, Future Research
Research Questions “Who Am I?”- and Does It Matter? “When Is This Due?” COI Teaching Presence: QM: Design and Organization Alignment of Course Goals, Directed Facilitation Objectives, SLOs, Resources, This Project: Assessments Rubrics, Schedules, Feedback Instructor’s personality and style, availability, Mechanisms expression of personal This Project: views (“Teacher Presence”) QM Rubric is proxy for new affect Student Social and type of “Design and Cognitive Presences, Organization” in COI, affecting Student Performance and other COI Presences and Satisfaction. Student performance.
Theoretical Background: COI and Teaching Presence Community of Inquiry SP- participants feel “affectively connected one to another” Framework CP- learners “are able to (Garrison et al. 2000) construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse” TP- “design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes to support learning” (Swan and Ice 2010) COI Survey Instrument:
Others on “Teaching” and “Teacher” Directed Facilitation Teacher Presence Mishra 2006 (TPCK Model Arsham 2002- Instructor components)- “Presentational” availability, feedback , and “Performance Tutoring” personal enthusiasm Schulman 1987 (PCKM Model)- Cananaugh 2005- Teacher’s “Performance Tutoring” and individualized attention “Epistemic” components McLain 2005- Instructor/ Anderson et al. 2001- Instructor Student contacts personal insights Dawson 2008- frequency, Arsham 2002- Instructor professional quantity , flow of exchange expertise, confidence Bieleman 2003- e-mails’ Elmendorf and Ottenhoff 2009- effects on satisfaction argued for students’ “intellectual NACOL; Akin and Neal 2003- play”/ Instructor’s absence from time intensiveness of DB (in hybrid classes); DB absence personalized attention and compensated by in-class feedback discussions
Data, Methodology, Measurements • 14 Sections of an Online INTRODUCTORY SOCIOLOGY Course (Fall 2007 through Fall 2009); 5 Sections Pre-QM/9 Post-QM • Each course: 8 Units (Units “self-contained”: DB + assessment) • N= 112 ; all variables measured at Unit level of observation • Data ( Teaching and Student Presences ): Content analysis of Instructor and Student DB posts Coding: Evidence of each element in post = 1 “instance”. Totals averaged by number of student participants in Unit • Data ( Teacher Presence ): Archived individual e-mails (averaged per day; response time) Archived class “Reminders” (averaged per day) • Data ( DB/Test Grades ) : BB Gradebook • Data ( Satisfaction ): Content analysis of DB comments
Analysis: ANOVA by QM VARIABLE MEANS F SIG BEFORE/ AFTER QM 4.664 .033* REMINDERS .2146 .2955 EMAILS 6.691 .011* 1.2673 1.8848 RESPONSE 45.71 .000* .1458 TIME .3151 6 (INVERTED)
AN ANAL ALYSI SIS: COM OMPA PARISON ON of MEAN EANS EL ELEM EMENTS S of TEAC TEACHING G PR PRESEN ESENCE VARIABLE MEANS F SIG BEFORE/ AFTER QM .2772 IAGREE 7.046 .009* .4181 .8263 ICLARIFY 11.54 .001* 1.1901 5 .4469 IMANAGE 18.63 .000* .2169 2 .6951 IEXPERT 5.528 .021* .8890 .1611 IOPINION 25.27 .000* .4054 5 .7626 IEMOT 4.283 .041* 9446
ANALYSI YSIS: C S: COMPARI PARISON N MEANS VARIABLE F SIG of MEANS MEANS BEFORE/ AFTER QM EL ELEM EMEN ENTS o of 1.9966 4.391 .038* SEMOT STUD ST UDEN ENT PRESE PRESENCES 1.4418 .7555 44.172 .000* SGROUP .1908 1.5542 4.974 .028* SAGREE 1.2110 2.7366 .978 .325 SEXPLORE 2.5395 1.9525 14.737 .000* SAPPLY 1.1599 SINTEGRATE 1.4138 .194 .661 1.4857 .7665 .105 .747 STRIGGER .7313
VARIABLE MEANS F SIG BEFORE/ AFTER QM 81.538 TEST .311 .578 80.524 GRADE 80.375 DB 9.487 .003* 86.033 GRADE
Analysis: Factorial Structures of Student, Teacher, and Teaching Presences (Factor Loadings/ Varimax Rotation) SSOCIAL SCOGNHI SCOGNL IMANAGE TEACHER TEACHING IAGREE SGROUP STRIGGER SAGREE IMANAGE REMIND . 691 .890 .805 .754 .920 .719 ICLARIFY SEMOT SINTEGR SEXPLORE EMAILS .893 .783 .892 .803 .730 IEXPERT SAPPLY .755 RESPONSE .824 IOPINION TIME .687 .610 IEMOT SCALES: .855 SSOCIAL (Chronbach’s Alpha= .845) SCOGNITIVELOW (Alpha= .802) SCALES: SCOGNITIVEHIGH (Alpha= .840) TEACHER (Chronbach’s Alpha= .526) TEACHING (Alpha= .846)
Analysis: Regression VARIABLES MODEL 1:TESTGRADE MODEL 2:DBGRADE MODEL 3:SATISF Beta sig Beta sig Beta sig (Const) QM .095 .520 .308* .011 .759* .000 TEACHER -.157 .181 -.087 .445 -.222* .016 TEACHING -.197 .122 -.071 .557 .110 .266 SSOCIAL -.162 .254 -.061 .641 .336* .003 SCOGNLO .280* .023 .062 .595 -.034 .720 SCOGNHI .182 .187 .336* .008 -.078 .466 MODEL FIT Adjusted R 2 .066 .212 .429 F Change 2.301 5.277 14.909 Sig F Change .040* .000* .000* *p< .05; df= 6; Method: ENTER QM Codes: 0 = preQM; 1 = postQM All “Presences”= SCALES/Unweighted Sums of Variable Z-Scores
Analysis: EQS 6 CFA: Four-Factor Model of Teacher/Teaching Presences Chi Sq.=65.23 P=0.00 CFI=0.90 RMSEA=0.10
Summary Instructor’s Contribution to Online Learning may consists of: - Course Design and Organization - Teaching Presence on DB - Direct Management on DB - Personalized/ Teacher contacts with Students on and out of BB QM Rubric Implementation as New “Design and Organization”: - Increases Teacher and Teaching Presences - Reduces Direct Management on DB/ “personalizes” Management by moving it to Teacher domain (personal e-mail) - Reduces Student “self-management” (i.e. “Group Concerns”) on DB, thus, indirectly reducing “Student Social Presence” - Has a positive effect on Student Higher-Order Cognitive Presence via higher Teaching Presence - Teacher Presence, Student Social Presence, and QM positively affect course Satisfaction - QM and Higher-Order Cognitive Presence positively affect DB Grades
Limitations of Study Suggestions for Future Research -Confounded effects of Instructor Teaching Experience and Training and new Course Design Implementation (QM) -Small sample size; Unit-level (not Student- level) analysis -Subjectivity of content analysis/ coding -Temporal dynamics within the Course/ Time- series analysis across the course Unit structure
Just a Thought … IF: Teaching is a CRAFT encompassing Conception and Execution (Braverman) Instructor’s Conception of the Course as expressed in the Course Design (including Goals, SLOs, and Assessments) AND the Execution of the Teaching process ARE Socially Constructed in the context of the College and larger culture; academic field; Instructor perceptions, personality, and styles Student Learning is internalized, subjectively perceived, BUT is expressed and assessed in the context of external socially constructed reality at least partially created by the Instructor THANK YOU! Questions, Comments: aahall@dcc.edu
Recommend
More recommend
